The covering radius problem for sets of perfect matchings

Abstract: Consider the family of all perfect matchings of the complete graph $K_{2n}$ with $2n$ vertices. Given any collection $\mathcal M$ of perfect matchings of size $s$, there exists a maximum number $f(n,x)$ such that if $s\leq f(n,x)$, then there exists a perfect matching that agrees with each perfect matching in $\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges. We use probabilistic arguments to give several lower bounds for $f(n,x)$. We also apply the Lovász local lemma to find a function $g(n,x)$ such that if each edge appears at most $g(n, x)$ times then there exists a perfect matching that agrees with each perfect matching in $\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges. This is an analogue of an extremal result vis-á-vis the covering radius of sets of permutations, which was studied by Cameron and Wanless (cf. \cite{cameron}), and Keevash and Ku (cf. \cite{ku}). We also conclude with a conjecture of a more general problem in hypergraph matchings.

\section{Introduction}

In this paper, let $K_{2n}$ be the complete graph with $2n$ {\it vertices}, $n\in\mathbb N$. A {\it matching} in $K_{2n}$ is a set of pairwise non-adjacent {\it edges}; that is, no two edges share a common vertex. A {\it perfect matching} is a matching which matches all vertices of the graph; that is, every vertex of the graph is incident to exactly one edge of the matching. Any perfect matching is represented by a collection of two-element sets where the elements of each set are two distinct vertices; for instance $\{\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_3,v_4\}\}$ is a perfect matching in $K_4$, as shown in figure 1. Also, a {\it hypergraph} is a pair $(V,E)$, where $V$ is a finite set of vertices and $E$ is a finite family of subsets of $V$, called {\it hyperedges}. Using the terminology in \cite{bollobas}, we denote by $H$ a $t${\it-uniform} hypergraph ($t\in\mathbb N$), a hypergraph with $E\subset V^{(t)}$, where $V^{(t)}:=\{Y:Y\subset V,|Y|=t\}$.\bigskip

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
		\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{k4.jpg}
	\caption{Perfect matching in $K_4$.}
	\label{fig:k4}
\end{figure}

Consider the following problem:\bigskip

\begin{framed}
Given a collection of similar structures (family of permutations, system of finite sets et al.), what is the maximum size of the collection in order to ensure the existence of another such structure that shares at most $k$ elements with each structure in the collection?
\end{framed}

\bigskip

This problem is also known as the covering radius problem. This research problem has its origins in group theory, particularly in the permutation group $S_n$ acting on the set $[n]$ of natural numbers from $1$ to $n$. In any collection $G$ of permutations, we can measure the {\it Hamming distance} (or distance) $d(g,h)$ between a permutation $g$ in $G$ and any permutation $h$ picked from $S_n$. Here, the Hamming distance between two permutations is the number of positions in which they defer. For example, in $S_3$, $d(123,231)=3$. If we were to fix $h$ above and measure the distances $d(h,p)$ for every $p\in G$, there exists a minimum distance which we can obtain between $h$ and some\footnote{There may exist more than one choice of $p_0$ which gives a minimum distance.} $p_0\in G$, i.e. $\min\{d(h,p):p\in G\}=d(g,p_0)$. Now, repeating this procedure for every permutation $h\in S_n$, we can find the maximum of all the minimum distances measured earlier. This maximum value, denoted $cr(G)$, is the covering radius of the collection $G$; in fact, a simple argument shows that $cr(G):=\max_{h\in S_n}\min_{g\in G}{d(g,h)}$. Therefore, the covering radius problem is the problem of finding or, in many cases, estimating the covering radius of any given collection of permutations.\bigskip

Apropos of recent research, lower bounds of the covering radius of $G$ of $S_n$ have been established by Cameron and Wanless (2005) in \cite{cameron}, in which covering arguments were used to formulate a general criteria to find lower bounds of covering radii of sets of permutations. Keevash and Ku (2006) later improved (cf. \cite{ku}) the general criteria, obtaining an even stronger result to determine the lower bound of the covering radius of any collection of permutations with some constraints vis-\`{a}-vis a frequency parameter. Their result is the best possible so far. Covering radius results have profound applications and implications in group theory and combinatorial structures; for instance, the authors above have applied their results to Latin squares and Latin transversals, and recent literature suggests several generalizations of this theory to general groups \cite{ku}. Moreover, Similar classes of problems for intersecting families of finite sets have been studied extensively, and in particular \cite{babai} and \cite{graham} are good sources of information.\bigskip

In this paper, we consider the analogue of the problem mentioned above for perfect matchings in complete graphs. Our fundamental question is as follows:\bigskip

\begin{framed}
Suppose we have a finite collection of perfect matchings of $K_{2n}$. What is the largest possible number of elements in this collection such that we can find a perfect matching of $K_{2n}$ that {\it agrees} with each perfect matching in the collection in at most $x-1$ edges?
\end{framed}

\bigskip

Let $M$ denote an arbitrary perfect matching of $K_{2n}$. Moreover, call a vertex set $U\subset V(K_{2n})$ {\it{good}} (w.r.t. $M$) if $|U|\leq n$ and $\forall v_i,v_j\in U(e_{ij}\notin M)$. For a set $W$ of vertices, we say that two perfect matchings $M,M'$ agree on $W$ iff (i) $W$ is good w.r.t. $M$ and $M'$; (ii) $\forall v_i\in W(e_{ij}\in M\Leftrightarrow e_{ij}\in M')$. For example, if $M=\{\{1,2\}, \{3,4\}, \{5,6\}\}$ and $M'=\{\{1,2\}, \{3,5\}, \{4,6\}\}$, then $M$ and $M'$ agree on $W=\{1\}$. We now present a few elementary bounds which are obtained from Boole's inequality (also known as union bound).

\section{Elementary Results}

The union bound gives us several useful results.

\begin{thm}
\label{Crude 1}
Let $\mathcal M=\{M_1,...,M_s\}$ be a collection of perfect matchings in $K_{2n}$. If $s\leq{x!}\cdot\frac{{2n-x\choose x}}{{n\choose x}}$, then there exists a perfect matching that agrees with each $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges.
\end{thm}

\begin{shaded}
\noindent\textbf{Proof.}\bigskip

Randomly select a perfect matching out of all the perfect matchings. Consider any $M_i\in\mathcal M$ and any $T\subset V$, $|T|=x$, which is good w.r.t. $M_i$. Let $A_{i,T}$ be the event that the perfect matching selected agrees with $M_i$ on $T$. Then $$\mathbb P(A_{i,T})=\left[\frac{(2n-2x)!}{2^{n-x}\cdot(n-x)!}\right]\bigg/\left[\frac{(2n)!}{2^n\cdot n!}\right],$$\bigskip

since there are $\frac{(2n)!}{2^n\cdot n!}$ perfect matchings and exactly $\frac{(2n-2x)!}{2^{n-x}\cdot(n-x)!}$ of them with $x$ fixed edges.\bigskip

Let us sum the probabilities over all possible $i$ and $T$. Clearly, there are $s$ possible values of $i$, and for each perfect matching $M_i$ there are less than ${2n\choose x}$ good $T$. Moreover, $A_{i,T}\Leftrightarrow A_{i,T'}$ whenever $T,T'$ belong the same collection of edges, implying that the number of good $T$ should be reduced by a factor of $2^x$ in our calculation in order to avoid counting same events more than once. Thus we have, by Boole's inequality, $$\mathbb P\left(\bigcup_{i,T}{A_{i,T}}\right)\leq\sum_{i,T}{\mathbb P(A_{i,T})}<s\cdot{2n\choose x}2^{-x}\cdot\left[\frac{(2n-2x)!}{2^{n-x}\cdot(n-x)!}\right]\bigg/\left[\frac{(2n)!}{2^n\cdot n!}\right]\leq 1.$$\bigskip

Therefore, with positive probability none of the $A_{i,T}$ occur, and there must exist a perfect matching which agrees with each $M_i\in\mathcal M$ on a vertex set of at most $x-1$ vertices, i.e. in at most $x-1$ edges.\smallskip

\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\end{shaded}

\bigskip

Notice that the bound on $s$ is weak, since we gave a crude bound of ${2n\choose x}2^{-x}$ for the number of good $T$. By considering $T$ differently, we can obtain the exact number of good $T$. Here, we introduce the notion of $x$-matchings.\bigskip

\begin{dfn}
\label{matching}
An $x$-matching of $K_{2n}$ is a matching of size $x$. Thus, if $x=n$, then the $x$-matching is simply a perfect matching.
\end{dfn}

With this in mind, we can derive a larger upper bound on $s$ as follows:\bigskip

\begin{thm}
\label{Crude 2}
Let $\mathcal M=\{M_1,...,M_s\}$ be a family of perfect matchings in $K_{2n}$. If $s<\frac{x!}{2^x}\cdot\frac{{2n\choose x}\cdot{2n-x\choose x}}{{n\choose x}^2}$, then there exists a perfect matching that agrees with each $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges.
\end{thm}

\bigskip

\begin{shaded}
\noindent\textbf{Proof.}\bigskip

Randomly pick a perfect matching out of all the perfect matchings. Consider any $M_i\in\mathcal M$ and pick any $x$-matching $X\subset M_i$. Let $A_{i,X}$ be the event that the perfect matching picked contains $X$. Then $$\mathbb P(A_{i,X})=\left[\frac{(2n-2x)!}{2^{n-x}\cdot(n-x)!}\right]\bigg/\left[\frac{(2n)!}{2^n\cdot n!}\right],$$\bigskip

by the same reasoning as shown in the proof of Theorem \ref{Crude 1}.\bigskip

Let us sum the probabilities over all $i$ and $X$. Clearly, there are $s$ possible values of $i$, and for each perfect matching $M_i$ there are exactly ${n\choose x}$ $x$-matchings. Thus we have $$\mathbb P\left(\bigcup_{i,X}{A_{i,X}}\right)\leq\sum_{i,X}{\mathbb P(A_{i,X})}\leq s\cdot{n\choose x}\cdot\left[\frac{(2n-2x)!}{2^{n-x}\cdot(n-x)!}\right]\bigg/\left[\frac{(2n)!}{2^n\cdot n!}\right]< 1.$$\bigskip

Therefore, with positive probability none of the $A_{i,X}$ occur, and there must exist a perfect matching which agrees with each $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges.\smallskip

\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\end{shaded}

\section{Main Result}

Our main theorem requires the Lov\'{a}sz sieve. The Lov\'{a}sz local lemma is a powerful tool for showing the existence of structures with desired properties. Briefly speaking, we toss our events onto a probability space and evaluate the conditional probabilities of certain bad events occurring. If these probabilities are not too large in value, then with positive probability none of the bad events occur. More precisely,\bigskip

\begin{thm}[Lov\'{a}sz]
\label{Lovasz}
Let $\mathcal A=\{A_1,A_2,...,A_n\}$ be a collection of events in an arbitrary probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$. A graph $G(V,E)$ is called a dependency graph $(V=\{1,2,...,n\})$ for the events $A_1,A_2,...,A_n$, where $e_{ij}\in E$ iff $A_i$ and $A_j$ are related by some property $\pi$. Suppose that $G(V,E)$ is a dependency graph for the above events and $\exists x_1,x_2,...x_n\in[0,1)$, $S\subset\{1,2,...,n\}\setminus\{j:e_{ij}\in E\}$ such that $$\mathbb P\left(A_i\mid\bigcap_{k\in S}{\overline{A_k}}\right)\leq x_i\cdot\prod_{e_{ij}\in E}{(1-x_j)}.$$\bigskip

\noindent Then $\mathbb P(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}{\overline{A_i}})\geq\prod_{i=1}^{n}{(1-x_i)}$. Equivalently, with positive probability none of the $A_i$ occur.
\end{thm}

\bigskip

The proof of Theorem \ref{Lovasz} can be found in chapter 5 of \cite{alon} and chapter 19 of \cite{jukna}. We used the following special case (cf. \cite{alon}) of Theorem \ref{Lovasz} in our result:\bigskip

\begin{cor}
\label{Symmetric}
Suppose that $\mathcal A=\{A_1,A_2,...,A_n\}$ is a collection of events, and for any $A_i\in\mathcal A$ there is a subset $\mathcal D_{A_i}\subset\mathcal A$ of size at most $d$, such that for any subset $\mathcal S\subset\mathcal A\setminus\mathcal D_{A_i}$ we have $\mathbb P\left(A_i\mid\bigcap_{A_j\in\mathcal S}{\overline{A_j}}\right)\leq p$. If $ep(d+1)\leq 1$, then $\mathbb P(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}{\overline{A_i}})>0$.
\end{cor}

\bigskip

We now establish our main result on the covering radius problem for sets of perfect matching using Corollary \ref{Symmetric}. In this proof, the strategy we use mirrors that of the proof of the lower bound on the covering radius for sets of permutations, as presented in \cite{ku}. Such a strategy is also used in proof of the Erd\H{o}s-Spencer theorem on Latin transversals, as presented in chapter 5 of \cite{alon} (pp. 73-74).\bigskip

\begin{thm}
\label{Main}
Let $\mathcal M=\{M_1,...,M_s\}$ be a collection of perfect matchings in $K_{2n}$. Moreover, each of the ${2n\choose 2}$ edges appears at most $k$ times in the $M_i\in\mathcal M$ (we call $k$ the frequency parameter). If $k\leq\frac{1}{e\cdot2x(2n-1){n-1\choose x-1}}\left(\sum_{j=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2j}\frac{(2j)!}{j!\cdot2^j}}-e\right)$, then there exists a perfect matching which agrees with each perfect matching $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges.
\end{thm}

\begin{shaded}
\noindent\textbf{Proof.}\bigskip

Randomly pick a perfect matching $M$ from the set of all perfect matchings in $K_{2n}$. Consider any $M_i\in\mathcal M$ and any $x$-matching $X\subset M_i$. Let $A_{i,X}$ be the event that $X\subset M$. In our dependency graph, connect $A_{i,X}$ to $A_{i',X'}$ iff $X$ and $X'$ share at least one common vertex in their underlying vertex sets.\bigskip

For each $A_{i,X}$, let the set of its neighbours in the dependency graph be $\mathcal D_{i,X}$.\bigskip

\noindent{\it Claim: $|\mathcal D_{i,X}|\leq k\cdot2x(2n-1){n-1\choose x-1}=d$.}\bigskip

Indeed, we first pick one vertex out of the $2x$ vertices in $X$, then choose out of the $2n-1$ remaining vertices one particular vertex to be its neighbour in the perfect matching. Next, we choose a perfect matching $M_{i'}\in\mathcal M$ that contains the constructed edge; this can be done in at most $k$ ways. Lastly, we just pick $x-1$ out of the remaining $n-1$ edges in $M_{i'}$ to form $X'$.\bigskip

Let us now consider the probability $\mathbb P\left(A_{i,X}\mid\bigcap_{A_{i',X'}\in\mathcal S}{\overline{A_{i',X'}}}\right)=p_0$ for any subset $\mathcal S\subset \mathcal A\setminus\mathcal D_{i,X}$. For brevity let us label $E=\bigcap_{A_{i',X'}\in\mathcal S}{\overline{A_{i',X'}}}$. We shall bound $p_0$ from above.\bigskip

Fix $A_{i,X}$. Without loss of generality, let the underlying set of $2x$ vertices of the $x$-matching $X$ be $V=\{v_1,v_2,...,v_{2x}\}$. Now, randomly pair arbitrarily many of the $2x$ vertices in $V$. This gives us a collection of singletons (vertices) and doubletons (edges) - we call such a collection $W$. However, we restrict our $W$ such that the total number of singletons and doubletons in any $W$ cannot exceed $n$, i.e. if there are $2p$ singletons (the number of singletons must be even) and $q$ doubletons then $2p+q\leq n$ (note that $q+p=x$). This gives us $n-x \geq p \geq0$. Thus, the set $\mathcal W$ of all such restricted $W$ has cardinality $$\sum_{k=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2k}\frac{(2k)!}{k!\cdot2^k}},$$\bigskip

where each summand is the number of ways to partition the underlying vertex set into a collection of $k$ doubletons and $2x-2k$ singletons. (To resolve ambiguity in the expression above, let ${n\choose k}=0$ if $k<0$.)\bigskip

For each $W$, let $B_W$ be the event that a perfect matching contains $W$. For example, $$M=\{\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_3,v_4\},\{v_5,v_6\}\}$$

contains $W=\{\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_3\},\{v_6\}\}$, where every pair of singletons in $W$ does not belong to any edge in $M$. Clearly, all the $B_W$ are mutually exclusive, and their union equals $\Omega$.\bigskip

We shall show that the number of perfect matchings contained in $B_W\cap E$ is at least the number of perfect matchings contained in $A_{i,X}\cap E$. This can be done by means of constructing an injection from $A_{i,X}\cap E$ to $B_W\cap E$ for a particular fixed $W$.\bigskip

\noindent{\it Claim: $\forall W\in\mathcal W\left(|B_W\cap E|\geq |A_{i,X}\cap E|\right)$.}\bigskip

First, for any $M\in A_{i,X}\cap E$, consider the remaining $n-x$ edges not in $X$. Direct each edge such that the tail of the directed edge is the vertex with the smaller subscript. Thus, every edge $\{v_i,v_j\}\notin X, i<j$ becomes $(v_i,v_j)$. This gives us $n-x$ ordered pairs of vertices. Now, arrange the $n-x$ edges lexicographically by the following rule: compare every two edges and place the edge whose first component has a vertex with a smaller subscript in front; i.e. if $(v_i,v_j),(v_k,v_l)$ are both directed edges originally belonging to $W$ and $k<i$, then $(v_k,v_l)$ goes in front of $(v_i,v_j)$. This gives an ordered $(n-x)$-tuple $((v_a,v_b),(v_c,v_d),...)$ where $a<b$, $c<d$ and $a<c$ and so on. Denote this sequence of transformations on $M\setminus X$ by $\tau$. Notice that for any two distinct perfect matchings $M,M'\in A_{i,X}\cap E$, at least two of their $n-x$ edges outside $X$ are distinct (e.g. $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\beta\},\{v_\chi,v_\delta\}\}\subset M$, $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\chi\},\{v_\beta,v_{\delta'}\}\}\subset M'$), so their images under $\tau$ will also be distinct. Therefore, $\tau$ is injective.\bigskip

Now consider $W$. Without loss of generality, let $W$ contain $2p$ singletons, where $0\leq p\leq n-x$. Order the singletons in $W$ naturally by comparing their respective vertices' subscripts. Denote by $W_\gamma$ the image of $W$ under the natural ordering. Without loss of generality, write $$W_\gamma=\Big\{\big(\{v_1\},\{v_2\},...,\{v_{2p}\}\big),\{v_{2p+1},v_{2p+2}\},...,\{v_{2x-1},v_{2x}\}\Big\}.$$

We define a mapping as follows:\bigskip

For any $M\in A_{i,X}\cap E$, we consider their images under $\tau$. Treating the $(n-x)$-tuple, of which each component is an ordered pair, as an ordered string of vertices of length $2n-2x$, we select the first $2p$ vertices appearing in the string and pair the $k$th vertex in the string with $v_k$ in $W$. This gives us the set $\Gamma=\{(\{v_1,v_a\},\{v_2,v_b\},...),\{v_{2p+1},v_{2p+2}\},...\}$. Remove the natural ordering on $\Gamma$ to yield $\Gamma_0=\{\{v_1,v_a\},\{v_2,v_b\},...,\{v_{2p+1},v_{2p+2}\},...\}$. Now map the shortened string of length $2n-2x-2p$ back to its set of unordered $n-x-p$ edges (note that this gives us edges which were originally in $M$); call this edge set $\Gamma_1$. Clearly, $\mathring{\Gamma}(M)=\Gamma_0\cup\Gamma_1$ gives us a perfect matching in $B_W\cap E$, since $E$ is the event that $X'\not \subseteq M$ where $X'\cap X=\emptyset$, guaranteeing that our mapping preserves $E$. Moreover, for any fixed $W$ and two distinct $M,M'\in A_{i,X}\cap E$ their respective $\mathring{\Gamma}$ are distinct. Indeed, consider $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\beta\},\{v_\chi,v_\delta\}\}\subset M\setminus X$ and $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\chi\},\{v_\beta,v_{\delta'}\}\}\subset M'\setminus X$, where $\{v_{\alpha}, v_{\beta}\}$ and $\{v_{\alpha}, v_{\chi}\}$ is the first edge in which $M$, $M'$ differ (after performing $\tau$ on $M\setminus X$ and $M'\setminus X$). Without loss of generality, let $\alpha = \min\{\alpha, \beta, \chi, \delta, \delta'\}$. Suppose that $\alpha$ is within the first $2p$ vertices of the ordered $(n-x)$-tuple (otherwise we are done since $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\beta\},\{v_\chi,v_\delta\}\}\subset M_W$ and $\{\{v_\alpha,v_\chi\},\{v_\beta,v_\delta\}\}\subset M'_W$). Then, if the mapping yields, for example, $\{\{v_4,v_\alpha\},\{v_5,v_\beta\}\}\subset M_W$, then we would yield $\{\{v_4,v_\alpha\},\{v_5,v_\chi\}\}\subset M'_W$; clearly $M_W\neq M'_W$. Thus there is an injection from $A_{i,X}\cap E$ to $B_W\cap E$, i.e. $|B_W\cap E|\geq |A_{i,X}\cap E|$.\bigskip

Therefore, we have $$p_0=\mathbb P\left(A_{i,X}\mid E\right)\leq\mathbb P\left(B_W\mid E\right).$$\bigskip

Summing over all possible $W$, we have $p_0\cdot\sum_{k=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2k}\frac{(2k)!}{k!\cdot2^k}}\leq 1$, which gives $$p_0\leq\frac{1}{\sum_{k=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2k}\frac{(2k)!}{k!\cdot2^k}}}=p.$$\bigskip

Now, we want $ep(d+1)\leq 1$. This is equivalent to $$k\leq\frac{1}{e\cdot2x(2n-1){n-1\choose x-1}}\left(\sum_{j=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2j}\frac{(2j)!}{j!\cdot2^j}}-e\right).$$\smallskip

\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\end{shaded}

\section{A Conjecture}

In the proof of Theorem \ref{Main}, we used the idea of $\tau$ transformation to create unique permutations of perfect matchings. Here, we extend the notion of perfect matchings of graphs to that of $t$-uniform hypergraphs of order $tn$, i.e. $\forall v\in V\exists! e\in E(v\in e)$. This gives us a more general problem as follows:\bigskip

\begin{framed}
Let $\mathcal M=\{M_1,...,M_s\}$ be a collection of perfect matchings of a $t$-uniform hypergraph $H$ of order $tn$. Moreover, each of the $\frac{(nt)!}{(t!)^n\cdot n!}$ $t$-edges of the hypergraph appears at most $k$ times. Suppose that there does not exist a perfect matching of $H$ which agrees with each perfect matching $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges. What is the best possible lower bound for $k$?
\end{framed}

\bigskip

Following the method of proof of Theorem \ref{Main}, randomly pick a perfect matching $M$ from the set of all perfect matchings of $H$. Consider any $M_i\in \mathcal M$ and any $x$-matching $X\subset M_i$. Let $A_{i,X}$ be the event that $X\subset M$, and connect $A_{i,X}$ to $A_{i',X'}$ iff $X$ and $X'$ share at least one common vertex in their underlying vertex set. For each $A_{i,X}$, let the set of its neighbours in the dependency graph be $\mathcal D_{i,X}$. A combinatorial argument yields $$|\mathcal D_{i,X}|\leq k\cdot tx{tn-1\choose t-1}{n-1\choose x-1}=d.$$\bigskip

If we attempt to bound $$\mathbb P\left(A_{i,X}\mid\bigcap_{A_{i',X'}\in\mathcal S}{\overline{A_{i',X'}}}\right)=p_0$$

for any subset $\mathcal S\subset\mathcal A\setminus\mathcal D_{i,X}$, a difficulty arises if we mirror the mapping technique. We can still consider events similar to $W$ which split the underlying vertex set of $X$ into sets of $t$-edges, $(t-1)$-edges etc. and order them. Moreover, if a transformation similar to $\tau$ is performed on any matching $M\in A_{i,X}\cap E$, injectivity is still preserved. However, while it seems intuitively true that our $B_W\cap E$ should contain more elements that $A_{i,X}\cap E$, it is not as straightforward to map vertices into the respective $(t-\theta)$-edges, $t-1\geq\theta\geq 1$, such that injectivity is preserved. Hence, the problem remains open. Particularly, we conjecture:\bigskip

\begin{con}
Let $\mathcal M=\{M_1,...,M_s\}$ be a collection of perfect matchings of a $t$-uniform hypergraph $H$ of order $tn$. Moreover, each of the $\frac{(nt)!}{(t!)^n\cdot n!}$ $t$-edges of the hypergraph appears at most $k$ times. If $k\leq \frac{1}{e\cdot tx{tn-1\choose t-1}{n-1\choose x-1}}\left(N-e\right)$, where $$N=\sum{\left[\prod_{i=1}^{n}{{tx\choose ta_i}\frac{(ta_i)!}{(t!)^{a_i}(a_i)!}}\right]}$$\smallskip
is the sum over all vectors $(a_1,...,a_t)\in\left(\mathbb N\cup\{0\}\right)^t$ satisfying $ta_t+(t-1)a_{t-1}+...+a_1=tx$ and $a_t+a_{t-1}+...+a_1\leq n$, then there exists a perfect matching which agrees with each perfect matching $M_i\in\mathcal M$ in at most $x-1$ edges.
\end{con}

\bigskip

The upper bound for $k$ is based on the assumption that the intuition is correct.

\section{Conclusion}

It is unknown whether the upper bound obtained for $k$, namely\bigskip

$$\frac{1}{e\cdot2x(2n-1){n-1\choose x-1}}\left(\sum_{j=2x-n}^{x}{{2x\choose 2j}\frac{(2j)!}{j!\cdot2^j}}-e\right),$$

\medskip

is optimal, inasmuch as there is hitherto no research done in this area. However, it is possibly a fairly strong bound because the Lov\'{a}sz sieve is known to establish good bounds in problems.\bigskip

A possible continuation of our research is as follows: In \cite{ku}, a semi-random construction of a permutation code was given. In particular, using an analogue of Theorem \ref{Lovasz} for two events, an algorithm was formulated to construct a set of permutations in $S_n$ that is $<s$-intersecting in polynomial expected time. It would be possible to consider an analogue of the semi-random construction for collections of perfect matchings in $K_{2n}$.

\newpage


Piecewise linear approximations of the standard normal first order loss function

Abstract: The first order loss function and its complementary function are extensively used in practical settings. When the random variable of interest is normally distributed, the first order loss function can be easily expressed in terms of the standard normal cumulative distribution and probability density function. However, the standard normal cumulative distribution does not admit a closed form solution and cannot be easily linearised. Several works in the literature discuss approximations for either the standard normal cumulative distribution or the first order loss function and their inverse. However, a comprehensive study on piecewise linear upper and lower bounds for the first order loss function is still missing. In this work, we initially summarise a number of distribution independent results for the first order loss function and its complementary function. We then extend this discussion by focusing first on random variable featuring a symmetric distribution, and then on normally distributed random variables. For the latter, we develop effective piecewise linear upper and lower bounds that can be immediately embedded in MILP models. These linearisations rely on constant parameters that are independent of the mean and standard deviation of the normal distribution of interest. We finally discuss how to compute optimal linearisation parameters that minimise the maximum approximation error.

\section{Introduction}

Consider a random variable $\omega$ and a scalar variable $x$. The first order loss function is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\mbox{E}[\max(\omega-x,0)],
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{E}$ denotes the expected value.
The complementary first order loss function is defined as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\mbox{E}[\max(x-\omega,0)].
\end{equation}
The first order loss function and its complementary function play a key role in several application domains. In inventory control \cite{spp98} it is often used to express expected inventory holding or shortage costs, as well as service level measures such as the widely adopted ``fill rate'', also known as $\beta$ service level \cite{Axsater2006}, p. 94. In  finance the first order loss function may be employed to capture risk measures such as the so-called ``conditional value at risk'' (see e.g. \cite{citeulike:1194520}). These examples illustrate possible applications of this function. Of course, the applicability of this function goes beyond inventory theory and finance.

Despite its importance, to the best of our knowledge a comprehensive analysis of results concerning the first order loss function seems to be missing in the literature. In Section \ref{sec:loss_function}, we first summarise a number of distribution independent results for the first order loss function and its complementary function. We then focus on symmetric distributions and on normal distributions; for these we discuss ad-hoc results in Section \ref{sec:loss_function_normal}.

According to one of these results, the first order loss function can be expressed in terms of the cumulative distribution function of the random variable under scrutiny. Depending on the probability distribution adopted, integrating this function may constitute a challenging task. For instance, if the random variable is normally distributed, no closed formulation exists for its cumulative distribution function.
Several approximations have been proposed in the literature, see e.g. \cite{zelen64,shore1982,citeulike:12461167,citeulike:12461170,citeulike:12461174,citeulike:12317680}, which can be employed to approximate the first order loss function. However, these approximations are generally nonlinear and cannot be easily embedded in mixed integer linear programming (MILP) models.

In Section \ref{sec:lb} and \ref{sec:ub}, we introduce piecewise linear lower and upper bounds for the first order loss function and its complementary function for the case of normally distributed random variables. These bounds are based on standard bounding techniques from stochastic programming, i.e. Jensen's lower bound  and Edmundson-Madansky upper bound \cite{citeulike:695971}, p. 167-168. The bounds can be readily used in MILP models and do not require instance dependent tabulations. Our linearisation strategy is based on standard optimal linearisation coefficients computed in such a way as to minimise the maximum approximation error, i.e. according to a minimax approach. Optimal coefficients for approximations comprising from two to eleven segments will be presented in Table \ref{tab:parameters}; these can be reused to approximate the loss function associated with any normally distributed random variable.

\section{The first order loss function and its complementary function}\label{sec:loss_function}

Consider a continuous random variable $\omega$ with support over $\mathbb{R}$, probability density function $g_\omega(x):\mathbb{R}\rightarrow(0,1)$ and cumulative distribution function $G_\omega(x):\mathbb{R}\rightarrow(0,1)$. The first order loss function can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \max(t-x,0)g_\omega(t)\,dt=\int_{x}^{\infty} (t-x)g_\omega(t)\,dt.
\end{equation}
The complementary first order loss function can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \max(x-t,0)g_\omega(t)\,dt=\int_{-\infty}^{x} (x-t)g_\omega(t)\,dt.
\end{equation}

\begin{lem}\label{thm:relationship_fol_com_2}
The first order loss function $\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)$ can also be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\int_{x}^{\infty} \left(1-G_\omega(t)\right)\,dt
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)		&=	\int_{x}^{\infty} (t-x)g_\omega(t)\,dt\\
						&=	\int_{x}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-x \int_{x}^{\infty} g_\omega(t)\,dt
\end{align}
the integration of
\[\int_{x}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt\]
is a well-known integration by parts that proceeds as follows.
Let $u(t)=t$, $u'(t)=1$, $v(t)=-(1-G_\omega(t))$, $v'(t)=g_\omega(t)$. Rewrite the integral as
\[\int_{x}^{b} t g_\omega(t)\,dt=\left[-t(1-G_\omega(t))\right]_{x}^{b}+\int_{x}^{b}(1-G_\omega(t))\, dt\]
and take the limit since $b\rightarrow\infty$. The product term in the integration by parts formula converges to $x(1-G_\omega(x))$ as $b\rightarrow\infty$. We therefore take the limit to obtain the identity
\[\int_{x}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt=x(1-G_\omega(x))+\int_{x}^{\infty}(1-G_\omega(t))\, dt\]
and by substituting $\int_{x}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt$ with this expression we obtain
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)				&=	x(1-G_\omega(x))+\int_{x}^{\infty}(1-G_\omega(t))\, dt - x (1-G_\omega(x))\\
								&=	\int_{x}^{\infty}(1-G_\omega(t))\, dt
\end{align}
\end{proof}

The following well-known lemma is introduced, together with its proof, for completeness.

\begin{lem}\label{thm:compl_fol}
The complementary first order loss function $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ can also be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)		&=	\int_{-\infty}^{x} (x-t)g_\omega(t)\,dt\\
							&=	x \int_{-\infty}^{x} g_\omega(t)\,dt-\int_{-\infty}^{x} t g_\omega(t)\,dt\\											&=	x G_\omega(x) - \int_{-\infty}^{x} t g_\omega(t)\,dt\\
							&=	x G_\omega(x) - x G_\omega(x) + \int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt\\
							&=	\int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt
\end{align}
\end{proof}

There is a close relationship between the first order loss function and the complementary first order loss function.

\begin{lem}\label{thm:relationship_fol_com_1}
The first order loss function $\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)$ can also be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)-(x-\tilde{\omega})
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\omega}=\mbox{\em E}[\omega]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)		&=	\int_{x}^{\infty} (t-x)g_\omega(t)\,dt\\
						&=	\int_{x}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-x \int_{x}^{\infty} g_\omega(t)\,dt\\											&=	\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-\int_{-\infty}^{x} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-x \int_{x}^{\infty} g_\omega(t)\,dt\\
						&= 	\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-\int_{-\infty}^{x} t g_\omega(t)\,dt-x (1-G_\omega(t))\\
						&= 	\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} t g_\omega(t)\,dt- x G_\omega(x) + \int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt-x (1-G_\omega(t))\\
						&=	\int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt-(x-\tilde{\omega})\\
						&=	\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)-(x-\tilde{\omega})
\end{align}
\end{proof}

Because of the relation discussed in Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_1}, in what follows without loss of generality most of the results will be presented for the complementary first order loss function.

Another known result for the first order loss function and its complementary function is their convexity, which we present next.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:convexity_loss_function}
$\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ are convex in $x$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We shall prove the result for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$. Recall that $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{x} G_\omega(t)\,dt$. From the fundamental theorem of integral calculus
\[\frac{d}{dx}\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=G_\omega(x)\]
and
\[\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=g_\omega(x).\]
Since $g_\omega(x)$ is nonnegative the result follows immediately; furthermore, the proof for $\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)$ follows from Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_1} and from the fact that $-x$ is convex.
\end{proof}

For a random variable $\omega$ with symmetric probability density function, we introduce the following results.

\begin{lem}\label{thm:fol_symm}
If the probability density function of $\omega$ is symmetric about a mean value $\tilde{\omega}$, then \[\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(2\tilde{\omega}-x,\omega).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)		&=	\int_{x}^{\infty} \left(1-G_\omega(t)\right)\,dt	\\
						&=	\int_{-\infty}^{\tilde{\omega}-(x-\tilde{\omega})} G_\omega(t)\,dt	\\
						&=	\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(2\tilde{\omega}-x,\omega)
\end{align}
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{thm:fol_automorphism}
If the probability density function of $\omega$ is symmetric about a mean value $\tilde{\omega}$, then
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(2\tilde{\omega}-x,\omega)+(x-\tilde{\omega})\] and
\[\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)=\mathcal{L}(2\tilde{\omega}-x,\omega)-(x-\tilde{\omega}).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Follows immediately from Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_1} and Lemma \ref{thm:fol_symm}.
\end{proof}

The results presented so far are easily extended to the case in which the random variable is discrete. In the following section we present results for the case in which the random variable is normally distributed.

\section{The first order loss function for a normally distributed random variable}\label{sec:loss_function_normal}

Let $\zeta$ be a normally distributed random variable with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$.
Recall that the Normal probability density function is defined as
\begin{equation}
g_\zeta(x)=\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}.
\end{equation}
No closed form expression exists for the cumulative distribution function \[G_\zeta(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x g_\zeta(x)\,dx.\]
Let $\phi(x)$ be the standard Normal probability density function
and $\Phi(x)$ the respective cumulative distribution function.

We next present three known results for a normally distributed random variable: a standardisation result  in Lemma \ref{lem:folf_std_norm}, and two closed form expressions for the computation of the loss function and of its complementary function in Lemmas \ref{thm:compl_fol_closed} and \ref{thm:compl_fol_closed_2}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:folf_std_norm}
The complementary first order loss function of $\zeta$ can be expressed in terms of the standard Normal cumulative distribution function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compl_fol_norm}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)=\sigma\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}} \Phi(t)\,dt=\sigma\widehat{\mathcal{L}}\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma},Z\right),
\end{equation}
where $Z$ is a standard Normal random variable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the complementary first order loss function is defined as
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)=\int_{-\infty}^{x} (x-t)g_\zeta(t)\,dt.\]
We change the upper integration limit to
\[f(x)=\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\]
by noting that
\[f^{-1}(y)=\sigma y+\mu,~~~~~\frac{df^{-1}(y)}{dy}=\sigma\]
it follows that
\begin{align}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)	&=\int_{-\infty}^{f(x)} (x-f^{-1}(t))g_\zeta(f^{-1}(t))\frac{df^{-1}(t)}{dt}\,dt.\\
						&=\sigma\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}} (x-\sigma t -\mu)\frac{1}{\sigma}\phi(t)\,dt.\\
						&=\sigma\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}} \sigma\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma} - t\right)\frac{1}{\sigma}\phi(t)\,dt.
\end{align}
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{thm:compl_fol_closed}
The complementary first order loss function $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)$ can be rewritten in closed form as
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)=\sigma\left(\phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)+\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Integrate by parts Eq. \ref{eq:compl_fol_norm} and observe that $\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}}t\phi(t)\,dt=-\phi(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma})$.
\end{proof}

From Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_1} the first order loss function of $\zeta$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fol_norm}
\mathcal{L}(x,\zeta)=-(x-\mu)+\sigma\int_{-\infty}^{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}} \Phi(t)\,dt
\end{equation}
Recall that an alternative expression is obtained via Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_2},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fol_norm_1}
\mathcal{L}(x,\zeta)=\sigma\int_{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}}^{\infty} (1-\Phi(t))\,dt.
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{thm:relationship_fol_com_1} and Lemma \ref{thm:compl_fol_closed} we obtain the closed form expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fol_norm_closed}
\mathcal{L}(x,\zeta)=-(x-\mu)+\sigma\left(\phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)+\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)
\end{equation}

\begin{lem}\label{thm:compl_fol_closed_2}
The first order loss function $\mathcal{L}(x,\zeta)$ can be rewritten in closed form as
\[\mathcal{L}(x,\zeta)=\sigma\left(\phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)-\left(1-\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\right)\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Integrate by parts Eq. \ref{eq:fol_norm} and observe that $\int_{\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}}^{\infty}t\phi(t)\,dt=\phi(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma})$.
\end{proof}

Furthermore, since the Normal distribution is symmetric, both Lemma \ref{thm:fol_symm} and Lemma \ref{thm:fol_automorphism} hold.

\section{Jensen's lower bound for the standard normal first order loss function}\label{sec:lb}

We introduce a well-known inequality from stochastic programming \cite{citeulike:695971}, p. 167.

\subsection{Jensen's lower bound}

\begin{thm}[Jensen's inequality]\label{jensens}
Consider a random variable $\omega$ with support $\Omega$ and a function $f(x,s)$, which for a fixed $x$ is convex for all $s\in\Omega$, then
\[\mbox{E}[f(x,\omega)]\geq f(x,\mbox{E}[\omega]).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\cite{citeulike:2516312}, p. 140.
\end{proof}

Common discrete lower bounding approximations in stochastic programming are extensions of Jensen's inequality. The usual strategy is to find a low cardinality discrete set of realisations representing a good approximation of the true underling distribution.
 \cite{citeulike:2516312}, p. 288, discuss one of these discrete lower bounding approximations which consists in partitioning the support $\Omega$ into a number of disjoint regions, Jensen's bound is then applied in each of these regions.

More formally, let $g_{\omega}(\cdot)$ denote the probability density function of $\omega$ and consider a partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ into $N$ disjoint compact subregions $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$. We define, for all $i=1,\ldots,N$
\[p_i=\Pr\{\omega\in \Omega_i\}=\int_{\Omega_i} g_{\omega}(t)\,dt\]
and
\[\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]=\frac{1}{p_i}\int_{\Omega_i} t g_{\omega}(t)\,dt\]

\begin{thm}\label{discrete_bounding}
\[\mbox{E}[f(x,\omega)]\geq\sum_{i=1}^N p_i f(x,\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i])\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\cite{citeulike:2516312}, p. 289.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}
Given a random variable $\omega$ Jensen's bound (Theorem \ref{jensens}) is applicable to the first order loss function $\mathcal{L}(x,\omega)$ and its complementary function $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem:convexity_loss_function}.
\end{proof}
Having established this result, we must then decide how to partition the support $\omega$ in order to obtain a good bound. In fact, to generate good lower bounds, it is necessary to carefully select the partition of the support $\omega$. The optimal partitioning strategy will depend, of course, on the probability distribution of the random variable $\omega$.

\subsection{Minimax discrete lower bounding approximation}

We discuss a minimax strategy for generating discrete lower bounding approximations of the (complementary) first order loss function. In this strategy, we partition the support $\omega$ into a predefined number of regions $N$ in order to minimise the maximum approximation error.

Consider a random variable $\omega$ and the associated complementary first order loss function
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\mbox{E}[\max(x-\omega,0)];\]
assume that the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ is partitioned into $N$ disjoint subregions $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:piecewise_linear}
For the (complementary) first order loss function the lower bound presented in Theorem \ref{discrete_bounding} is a piecewise linear function with $N+1$ segments.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the bound presented in Theorem \ref{discrete_bounding} and let $f(x,\omega)=\max(x-\omega,0)$,
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)=\sum_{i=1}^N p_i \max(x-\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i],0)\]
this function is equivalent to
{\scriptsize
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0&-\infty\leq x\leq \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1]\\
p_1 x - p_1\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1]&\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1]\leq x\leq \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_2]\\
(p_1+p_2) x - (p_1\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1]+p_2\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_2])&\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_2]\leq x\leq \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_3]\\
\vdots&\vdots\\
(p_1+p_2+\hdots+p_N) x - (p_1\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1]+p_2\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_2]+\hdots+p_N\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_N])&\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_{N-1}]\leq x\leq \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_N]\\
\end{array}
\right.\]\\}
which is piecewise linear in $x$ with breakpoints at $\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_1],\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_2],\ldots,\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_N]$. The proof for the first order loss function follows a similar reasoning.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:tangent}
Consider the $i$-th linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)$
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)=x\sum_{k=1}^i p_k-\sum_{k=1}^i p_k \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_k]~~~~\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_{i}]\leq x\leq \mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_{i+1}],\]
where $i=1,\ldots,N$. Let $\Omega_i=[a,b]$, then $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)$ is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ at $x=b$. Furthermore, the $0$-th segment $x=0$ is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ at $x=-\infty$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)=x\sum_{k=1}^i \int_{\Omega_k} g_{\omega}(t)\;dt-\sum_{k=1}^i \int_{\Omega_k} t g_{\omega}(t)\;dt\]
and that \[\Omega_1\cup\Omega_2\cup\ldots\cup\Omega_i=)-\infty,b]\]
it follows
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)=x \int_{-\infty}^b g_{\omega}(t)\;dt-\int_{-\infty}^b t g_{\omega}(t)\;dt\]
and
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)=G_{\omega}(b)(x-b)+\int_{-\infty}^b G_{\omega}(t)\;dt.\]
which is the equation of the tangent line to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ at a given point $b$, that is
\[y=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega)'(x-b)+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega).\]
$x=0$ is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ at $x=-\infty$ since $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ is convex, positive and
\[\lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} \widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=0.\]
The very same reasoning can be easily applied to the first order loss function.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:max_error_at_breakpoints}
The maximum approximation error between $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ will be attained at a breakpoint.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By recalling that $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ is convex (Lemma \ref{lem:convexity_loss_function}), since $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ is piecewise linear (Lemma \ref{lem:piecewise_linear}) and each segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ (Lemma \ref{lem:tangent}), it follows that the maximum error will be attained at a breakpoint.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:approx_err_equal}
Given the number of regions $N$, $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ is an optimal partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ under a minimax strategy, if and only if approximation errors at breakpoints are all equal.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The approximation errors for $x\rightarrow-\infty$ and $x\rightarrow\infty$ are both 0; since we have N+1 segments, we only have $N$ breakpoints to check.

We first show that ($\rightarrow$) if $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ is an optimal partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ under a minimax strategy, then approximation errors at breakpoints are all equal.

A first observation that follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem:max_error_at_breakpoints} is that, if the slope of segment $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{i+1}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ remains unchanged, and the breakpoint between $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{i+1}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ moves towards the point at which $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{i+1}_{lb}(x,\omega)$ is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$, the error at such breakpoint decreases.

If one changes the size of region $\Omega_i$ so that the upper limit becomes $b_i+\Delta$, then $\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$ will increase if $\Delta>0$, or will decrease if $\Delta<0$. This immediately follows from the definition of $\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$. Therefore, the breakpoint between segment $i$ and segment $i+1$, which occurs at $\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$, will move accordingly. However, the slope of segment $i+1$, which we recall is equal to $G_\omega(b_{i+1})$, depends uniquely on the upper limit of the region $\Omega_{i+1}$, $b_{i+1}$, and is not affected by a change in the upper limit of region $\Omega_i$. Therefore, the error at the breakpoint between segment $i$ and segment $i+1$ will decrease if $\Delta>0$, or will increase if $\Delta<0$.

Now, assume that $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ is an optimal partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ and approximation errors at breakpoints are not all equal. Furthermore, assume that the maximum approximation error occurs at breakpoint $i$. By  increasing the size of the region $\Omega_i$, i.e. by setting the upper limit to $b_i+\Delta$, where $\Delta>0$, it is possible to decrease the maximum error until it becomes equal to the error at breakpoint $k$, where $k\in\{1,\ldots,i-1\}$. The procedure can be repeated until all approximation errors are equal.

Second, we show that ($\leftarrow$) if approximation errors at breakpoints are all equal, then $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ is an optimal partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$ under a minimax strategy.

If approximation errors at breakpoints are all equal and we change the size of region $\Omega_i$ by setting the upper limit to $b_i+\Delta$, where $\Delta>0$, then the approximation error at breakpoint $i-1$ will increase; conversely, if $\Delta<0$, then the approximation error at breakpoint $i+1$ will increase.
\end{proof}

By using this last result it is possible to derive a set of equations that can be solved for computing an optimal partitioning.
Let us consider the error $e_i$ at breakpoint $i$, this can be expressed as
\[e_i=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i],\omega)-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{i}_{lb}(\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i],\omega),\]
where
$\Omega_i=[a_i,b_i]$.
Since we have $N$ breakpoints to check, we must solve a system comprising the following $N-1$ equations
\[e_1=e_i~~~\mbox{for }i=2,\ldots,N.\]
under the following restrictions
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
a_1&=-\infty\\
b_N&=\infty\\
a_i&\leq b_i&\mbox{for }i=1,\ldots,N\\
b_i&=a_{i+1}&\mbox{for }i=1,\ldots,N-1
\end{array}
\]
The system therefore involves $N-1$ variables, each of which identifies the boundary between two disjoint regions $\Omega_i$ and $\Omega_{i+1}$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:approx_err_symmetric}
Assume that the probability density function of $\omega$ is symmetric about a mean value $\tilde{\omega}$. Then, under a minimax strategy, if $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ is an optimal partition of the support $\Omega$ of $\omega$, breakpoints will be symmetric about $\tilde{\omega}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma \ref{thm:fol_automorphism} and Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal}.
\end{proof}

In this case, by exploiting the symmetry of the piecewise linear approximation, an optimal partitioning can be derived by solving a smaller system comprising $\lceil N/2 \rceil$ equations, where $N$ is the number of regions $\Omega_i$ and $\lceil x \rceil$ rounds $x$ to the next integer value.

Unfortunately, equations in the above system are nonlinear and do not admit a closed form solution in the general case.

\subsubsection{Normal distribution}

We will next discuss the system of equations that leads to an optimal partitioning for the case of a standard Normal random variable $Z$. This partitioning leads to a piecewise linear approximation that is, in fact, easily extended to the general case of a normally distributed variable $\zeta$ with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ via Lemma \ref{lem:folf_std_norm}. This equation suggests that the error of this approximation is independent of $\mu$ and proportional to $\sigma$.

Consider a partitioning for the support $\Omega$ of $Z$ into $N$ adjacent regions $\Omega_i=[a_i,b_i]$, where $i=1,\ldots,N$.
From Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_symmetric}, if $N$ is odd, then $b_{\lceil N/2\rceil}=0$ and $b_{i}=-b_{N+1-i}$, if $N$ is even, then $b_{i}=-b_{N+1-i}$. We shall use Lemma \ref{thm:compl_fol_closed} for expressing $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$.
Then, by observing that
\[\int_{a_i}^{b_i} t \phi(t)\,dt=\phi(a_i)-\phi(b_i)\]
and that $p_1+p_2+\ldots+p_i=\Phi(b_i)$, we rewrite
\begin{align}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i],Z)	&=\Phi(b_i)\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]-\sum_{k=1}^i(\phi(a_i)-\phi(b_i))\\
							&=\Phi(b_i)\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]-(\phi(a_1)-\phi(b_i))\\
							&=\Phi(b_i)\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]+\phi(b_i)
\end{align}

To express the conditional expectation $\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]$
we proceed as follows: let $p_i=\Phi(b_i)-\Phi(a_i)$,
it follows
\[\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]=\frac{\phi(a_i)-\phi(b_i)}{\Phi(b_i)-\Phi(a_i)}.\]

To solve the above system of non-linear equations we will exploit the close connections between finding a local minimum and solving a set of nonlinear equations. In particular, we will use the Gauss-Newton method to find a partition $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_N$ of the support of $Z$ that minimises the following sum of squares
\[\sum_{k=2}^{N}(e_1-e_k)^2\]

This minimisation problem can be solved by software packages such as Mathematica (see \texttt{NMinimize}).

\subsubsection{Numerical examples}

The classical Jensen's bound for the complementary first order loss function of a standard Normal random variable $Z$ is show in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-2}. This is obtained by considering a degenerate partition of the support of $Z$ comprising only a single region $\Omega_1=[-\infty,\infty]$. In practice, we simply replace $Z$ by its expected value, i.e. zero. Therefore we simply have $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}=\max(x,0)$. The maximum error of this piecewise linear approximation occurs for $x=0$ and it is equal to $1/\sqrt{2\pi}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-2}
\caption{classical Jensen's bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$}
\label{fig:piecewise-2}
\end{figure}

If we split the support of $Z$ into four regions (Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5}), the solution to the system of nonlinear equations prescribes to split $\Omega$ at $b_1=-0.886942$, $b_2=0$, $b_3=0.886942$. The maximum error is 0.0339052 and it is observed at $x\in\{\pm1.43535, \pm0.415223\}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-5}
\caption{five-segment piecewise Jensen's bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$}
\label{fig:piecewise-5}
\end{figure}

In Table \ref{tab:parameters} we report parameters of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,Z)$ with up to eleven segments. In Fig. \ref{fig:error} we present the approximation error of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,Z)$ with up to eleven segments.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{error}
\caption{approximation error of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,Z)$ with up to eleven segments}
\label{fig:error}
\end{figure}

\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[htdp]
\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|lllllllllll}
&&\multicolumn{11}{c}{Piecewise linear approximation parameters}\\
Segments&Error&$i$&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{2}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.398942}
&$b_i$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&1\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&0\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{3}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.120656}
&$b_i$&0&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&0.5&0.5\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-0.797885$&$0.797885$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.0578441}
&$b_i$&$-0.559725$&$0.559725$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&0.287833&0.424333&0.287833\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.18505$&$0$&$1.18505$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{5}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.0339052}
&$b_i$&$-0.886942$&$0$&$0.886942$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.187555$&$0.312445$&$0.312445$&$0.187555$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.43535$&$-0.415223$&$0.415223$&$1.43535$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{6}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.0222709}
&$b_i$&$-1.11507$&$-0.33895$&$0.33895$&$1.11507$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.132411$&$0.234913$&$0.265353$&$0.234913$&$0.132411$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.61805$&$-0.691424$&$0$&$0.691424$&$1.61805$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{7}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.0157461}
&$b_i$&$-1.28855$&$-0.579834$&$0$&$0.579834$&$1.28855$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.0987769$&$0.182236$&$0.218987$&$0.218987$&$0.182236$&$0.0987769$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.7608$&$-0.896011$&$-0.281889$&$0.281889$&$0.896011$&$1.7608$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{8}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.0117218}
&$b_i$&$-1.42763$&$-0.765185$&$-0.244223$&$0.244223$&$0.765185$&$1.42763$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.0766989$&$0.145382$&$0.181448$&$0.192942$&$0.181448$&$0.145382$&$0.0766989$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.87735$&$-1.05723$&$-0.493405$&$0$&$0.493405$&$1.05723$&$1.87735$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{9}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.00906529}
&$b_i$&$-1.54317$&$-0.914924$&$-0.433939$&$0$&$0.433939$&$0.914924$&$1.54317$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.0613946$&$0.118721$&$0.152051$&$0.167834$&$0.167834$&$0.152051$&$0.118721$&$0.0613946$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-1.97547$&$-1.18953$&$-0.661552$&$-0.213587$&$0.213587$&$0.661552$&$1.18953$&$1.97547$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{10}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.00721992}
&$b_i$&$-1.64166$&$-1.03998$&$-0.58826$&$-0.19112$&$0.19112$&$0.58826$&$1.03998$&$1.64166$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.0503306$&$0.0988444$&$0.129004$&$0.146037$&$0.151568$&$0.146037$&$0.129004$&$0.0988444$&$0.0503306$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-2.05996$&$-1.30127$&$-0.8004$&$-0.384597$&$0.$&$0.384597$&$0.8004$&$1.30127$&$2.05996$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{11}&
\multirow{4}{*}{0.00588597}
&$b_i$&$-1.72725$&$-1.14697$&$-0.717801$&$-0.347462$&$0.$&$0.347462$&$0.717801$&$1.14697$&$1.72725$&$\infty$\\
&&$p_i$&$0.0420611$&$0.0836356$&$0.110743$&$0.127682$&$0.135878$&$0.135878$&$0.127682$&$0.110743$&$0.0836356$&$0.0420611$\\
&&$\mbox{E}[\omega|\Omega_i]$&$-2.13399$&$-1.39768$&$-0.9182$&$-0.526575$&$-0.17199$&$0.17199$&$0.526575$&$0.9182$&$1.39768$&$2.13399$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{parameters of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{lb}(x,Z)$ with up to eleven segments}
\label{tab:parameters}
\end{table}%
\end{landscape}

In Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5-scaled} we exploited Lemma \ref{lem:folf_std_norm} to obtain
the five-segment piecewise Jensen's bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ is a normally distributed random variable with mean $\mu=20$ and standard deviation $\sigma=5$. The maximum error is $\sigma0.0339052$ and it is observed at $x\in\{\sigma(\pm1.43535)+\mu, \sigma(\pm0.415223)+\mu\}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-5-scaled}
\caption{five-segment piecewise Jensen's bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)$, where $\mu=20$ and $\sigma=5$}
\label{fig:piecewise-5-scaled}
\end{figure}

\section{An approximate piecewise linear upper bound for the standard normal first order loss function}\label{sec:ub}

In this section we introduce a simple bounding technique that exploits convexity of the (complementary) first order loss function to derive a piecewise linear upper bound.

\subsection{A piecewise linear upper bound}

Without loss of generality we shall introduce the bound for the complementary first order loss function. Consider a random variable $\omega$ with support $\Omega$. From Lemma \ref{lem:convexity_loss_function}, $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ is convex in $x$ regardless of the distribution of $\omega$. Given an interval $[a,b]\in\mathbb{R}$, it is possible to construct an upper bound by exploiting the very same definition of convexity, that is by constructing a straight line $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$ between the two points $(a,\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a,\omega))$ and $(b,\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega))$. The slope ($\alpha$) and the intercept ($\beta$) of this line can be easily computed
\[\alpha=\frac{\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega)-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a,\omega)}{b-a},~~~~~\beta=\frac{b \widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a,\omega)- a \widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega)}{b-a}.\]
The upper bound is then
\begin{align}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)&=\alpha x+\beta&a\leq x\leq b\\
							&=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a,\omega) \frac{b - x}{b-a}+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b,\omega) \frac{x - a}{b-a}&a\leq x\leq b
\end{align}
We can improve the quality of this bound by partitioning the domain $\mathbb{R}$ of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ into $N$ disjoint regions $\mathcal{D}_i=[a_i,b_i]$, $i=1,\ldots,N$. The selected regions must be all compact and adjacent. Because of the convexity of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ the bound can be then applied to each of these regions considered separately.

However, since $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ is defined over $\mathbb{R}$, it is not possible to guarantee a complete covering of the domain by using compact regions. We must therefore add two extreme regions $\mathcal{D}_0=[-\infty,a_1]$ and $\mathcal{D}_{N+1}=[a_{N+1}=b_N,\infty]$ to ensure the one obtained is indeed an upper bound for each $x\in\mathbb{R}$. By noting that
\[
\lim_{x\rightarrow_{-\infty}}\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=0~~~\mbox{and}~~~\lim_{x\rightarrow_{\infty}}\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=x
\]
it is easy to derive equations for the lines associated with these two extra regions. In particular, we associate with $\mathcal{D}_0$ a horizontal line with slope $\alpha=0$ and intercept $\beta=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_1,\omega)$, and with $\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ a line with slope $\alpha=1$ and intercept $\beta=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_N,\omega)-b_N$.

Also in this case, we must then decide how to partition the domain $\mathbb{R}$ into $N+2$ intervals $\mathcal{D}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ to obtain a tight bound. Once more, the optimal partitioning strategy will depend on the probability distribution of the random variable $\omega$.

\subsection{Minimax piecewise linear upper bound}

We discuss a minimax strategy for generating a piecewise linear upper bound of the (complementary) first order loss function $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$. In this strategy, we partition of the domain $\mathbb{R}$ of $x$ into a predefined number of regions $N+2$ in order to minimise the maximum approximation error. Note that, since this domain is not compact, one needs at least two regions to derive a piecewise linear upper bound.

Consider a random variable $\omega$ and the associated complementary first order loss function
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)=\mbox{E}[\max(x-\omega,0)];\]
assume that the domain $\mathbb{R}$ of $x$ is partitioned into $N+2$ disjoint adjacent subregions $\mathcal{D}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$, where $\mathcal{D}_0=[-\infty,a_1]$, $\mathcal{D}_i=[a_i,b_i]$, for $i=1,\ldots,N$, and $\mathcal{D}_{N+1}=[b_N,\infty]$, and consider the following piecewise linear upper bound
\[
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_1,\omega)&x\in\mathcal{D}_0\\
\vdots\\
\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_i,\omega) \frac{b_i - x}{b_i-a_i}+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_i,\omega) \frac{x - a_i}{b_i-a_i}&x\in\mathcal{D}_i\\
\vdots\\
x+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_N,\omega)-b_N&x\in\mathcal{D}_{N+1}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Let $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{ub}(x,\omega)$ be the linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$ over $\mathcal{D}_i$, for $i=0,\ldots,N+1$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:max_error_ub}
Consider $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{ub}(x,\omega)$, where $i=1,\ldots,N$; the maximum approximation error between $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{ub}(x,\omega)$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ will be attained for \[\bar{x}_i=G^{-1}_\omega\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_i,\omega)-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_i,\omega)}{b_i-a_i}\right).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The idea here is to derive a line that is tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ and that has a slope equal to that of the $i$-th linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$. We have already discussed in Lemma \ref{lem:tangent} that the equation of the tangent to $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ at a given point $\bar{x}_i$ is
\[y=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(\bar{x}_i,\omega)'(x-p)+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(\bar{x}_i,\omega)\]
that is
\[\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^i_{lb}(x,\omega)=G_{\omega}(\bar{x}_i)(x-p)+\int_{-\infty}^{\bar{x}_i} G_{\omega}(t)\;dt.\]
The slope $G_{\omega}(\bar{x}_i)$ only depends on $\bar{x}_i$. To find a tangent with a slope equal to that of the $i$-th linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$, we simply let \[G_{\omega}(\bar{x}_i)=\frac{\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_i,\omega)-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_i,\omega)}{b_i-a_i}\] and invert the cumulative distribution function.
\end{proof}
Note that the maximum approximation error for the linear segment over $\mathcal{D}_0$ is $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_1,\omega)$ and the maximum approximation error for the linear segment over $\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ is $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_N,\omega)-b_N$. This can be inferred from the fact that $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ monotonically approaches 0 for $x\rightarrow-\infty$ and $x$ for $x\rightarrow\infty$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:approx_err_equal_ub}
$\mathcal{D}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ is an optimal partition under a minimax strategy, if and only if the maximum approximation error between $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ and each linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$ is the same.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this theorem can be obtained from Lemma \ref{lem:max_error_ub} and from Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal}. In particular, the key insight needed to understand this result is the following. In Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal} we showed that the approximation errors at breakpoints for the piecewise linear lower bound presented are all equal to each other and also equal to the maximum approximation error; furthermore, in Lemma \ref{lem:tangent} we showed that the $i$-th piecewise linear segment of this lower bound agrees with the original function at point $b_i$, where $\Omega_i=[a_i,b_i]$ is the $i$-th partition of the support of $Z$, for $i=1,\ldots,N$.  Since the first order loss function is convex and we know the maximum approximation error, by shifting up the piecewise linear lower bound by a value equal to the maximum approximation error we immediately obtain a piecewise linear upper bound comprising $N+1$ segments. This upper bound agrees with the original function at $\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]$, for $i=1,\ldots,N$. The maximum approximation error will be attained at those points in which the lower bound was tangent to the original function, that is $a_1,b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_N$. By using a reasoning similar to the one developed for Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal}, it is possible to show that, if we increase or decrease at least one $\mbox{E}[Z|\Omega_i]$, the maximum approximation error can only increase.
\end{proof}
By using this result it is possible to derive a set of equations that can be solved for computing an optimal partitioning.
Let us consider the maximum approximation error $e_i$ associated with the $i$-th linear segment of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{ub}(x,\omega)$, this can be expressed as
\[e_i=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{i}_{ub}(\bar{x}_i,\omega)-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(\bar{x}_i,\omega),\]
where $i=1,\ldots,N$; furthermore $e_0=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(a_1,\omega)$ and $e_{N+1}=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(b_N,\omega)-b_N$.
Since we have $N+2$ segments to check, we must solve a system comprising the following $N+1$ equations
\[e_0=e_i~~~\mbox{for }i=1,\ldots,N+1\]
under the following restrictions
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
a_i&\leq b_i&\mbox{for }i=1,\ldots,N\\
b_i&=a_{i+1}&\mbox{for }i=1,\ldots,N-1
\end{array}
\]
The system involves $N+1$ variables, each of which identifies the boundary between two disjoint adjacent regions $\mathcal{D}_i$ and $\mathcal{D}_{i+1}$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:approx_err_symmetric_ub}
Assume that the probability density function of $\omega$ is symmetric about a mean value $\tilde{\omega}$. Then, under a minimax strategy, if $\mathcal{D}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ is an optimal partition of the domain, breakpoints will be symmetric about the mean value $\tilde{\omega}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma \ref{thm:fol_automorphism} and Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal_ub}.
\end{proof}
In this case, by exploiting the symmetry of the piecewise linear approximation, an optimal partitioning can be derived by solving a smaller system comprising $\lceil (N+1)/2 \rceil$ equations, where $N+2$ is the number of regions $\mathcal{D}_i$ and $\lceil x \rceil$ rounds $x$ to the next integer value.

As in the case of Jensen's bound, equations in the above system are nonlinear and do not admit a closed form solution in the general case. For sake of completeness, we will briefly discuss next how to derive the system of nonlinear equations for the case of a standard normal random variable $Z$. However, one should note that in practice, by exploiting the properties illustrated in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_equal_ub}, one does not need to solve a new system of nonlinear equations to derive the piecewise linear upper bound. All information needed, i.e. maximum approximation error at breakpoints and locations of the breakpoint, are in fact immediately available as soon as the system of equation presented for the piecewise linear lower bound is solved (Table \ref{tab:parameters}).

The upper bound presented is closely related to a well-known inequality from stochastic programming, see e.g. \cite{citeulike:695971}, p. 168, \cite{citeulike:12355817}, p. 316, and \cite{citeulike:2516312}, pp. 291-293. As pointed out in \cite{citeulike:695971}, p. 168, Edmundson-Madanski's upper bound can be seen as a bound where the original distribution is replaced by a two point distribution and the problem itself is unchanged, or it can be viewed as a bound where the distribution is left unchanged and the original function is replaced by a linear affine function represented by a straight line. The above discussion clearly demonstrates the dual nature of this upper bound.

\subsection{Normal distribution}

We will next discuss the system of equations that leads to an optimal partitioning for the case of a standard Normal random variable $Z$. This partitioning leads to a piecewise linear approximation that is, in fact, easily extended to the general case of a normally distributed variable $\zeta$ with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ via Lemma \ref{lem:folf_std_norm}. Also for this second approximation this equation suggests that the error is independent of $\mu$ and proportional to $\sigma$.

Consider a partitioning for the domain of $x$ in $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\omega)$ into $N+2$ adjacent regions $\mathcal{D}_i=[a_i,b_i]$, where $i=0,\ldots,N+1$. From Theorem \ref{thm:approx_err_symmetric_ub}, if $N$ is odd, then $b_{\lceil N/2\rceil}=0$ and $b_{i}=-b_{N+1-i}$, if $N$ is even, then $b_{i}=-b_{N+1-i}$. Also in this case, we shall use Lemma \ref{thm:compl_fol_closed} for expressing $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$, and we will exploit the close connections between finding a local minimum and solving a set of nonlinear equations. We will therefore use the Gauss-Newton method to minimize the following sum of squares
\[\sum_{k=1}^{N+1}(e_0-e_k)^2\]
This minimisation problem can be solved by software packages such as Mathematica (see \texttt{NMinimize}).

\subsubsection{Numerical examples}

A two-segment piecewise linear upper bound for the complementary first order loss function of a standard Normal random variable $Z$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-2-ub}. This bound has been obtained, under the minimax criterion previously described, by considering a single breakpoint in the domain, i.e. $x=0$. Of course, the maximum error of this piecewise linear approximation occurs for $x=\pm\infty$ and it is equal to $1/\sqrt{2\pi}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-2-ub}
\caption{two-segment piecewise linear upper bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$}
\label{fig:piecewise-2-ub}
\end{figure}
It is easy to observe that this upper bound can be obtained by adding to the classical Jensen's lower bound presented in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-2} a constant value equal to its maximum approximation error, i.e. $1/\sqrt{2\pi}$.

We next present a more interesting case, in which the domain has been split into five regions (Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5-ub}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-5-ub}
\caption{five-segment piecewise linear upper bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,Z)$}
\label{fig:piecewise-5-ub}
\end{figure}
Breakpoints are positioned at $x\in\{\pm1.43535,\pm0.415223\}$. These were the locations at which the maximum error, i.e. 0.0339052, was observed in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5}. Also in this case, the five-segment piecewise linear upper bound can be obtained by adding to the five-segment piecewise Jensen's lower bound a value equal to its maximum approximation error.

Finally, in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5-scaled-ub}, we show an example in which we exploited Lemma \ref{lem:folf_std_norm} to obtain, from the approximation presented in Fig. \ref{fig:piecewise-5-ub}, the five-segment piecewise linear upper bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ is a normally distributed random variable with mean $\mu=20$ and standard deviation $\sigma=5$. The maximum error is $\sigma0.0339052$ and it is observed at $x\in\{\pm\infty,\sigma(\pm0.886942)+\mu, \mu\}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[type=eps,ext=.eps,read=.eps,width=0.8\columnwidth]{piecewise-5-scaled-ub}
\caption{five-segment piecewise linear upper bound for $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(x,\zeta)$, where $\mu=20$ and $\sigma=5$}
\label{fig:piecewise-5-scaled-ub}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}

We summarised a number of distribution independent results for the first order loss function and its complementary function. We then focused on symmetric distributions and on normal distributions; for these we discussed ad-hoc results. To the best of our knowledge a comprehensive analysis of results concerning the first order loss function seems to be missing in the literature. The first contribution of this work was to fill this gap in the literature. Based on the results discussed, we developed effective piecewise linear approximation strategies based on a minimax framework. This is the second contribution of our work. More specifically, we developed piecewise linear upper and lower bounds for the first order loss function and its complementary function. These bounds rely on constant parameters that are independent of the means and standard deviation of the normal distribution considered. We discussed how to compute optimal parameters that minimise the maximum approximation error and we also provided a table with pre-computed optimal parameters for piecewise bound with up to eleven segments. These bounds can be easily embedded in existing MILP models.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

INSERT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS HERE

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Probability (math.PR)


Minors of a skew symmetric matrix: A combinatorial approach

Abstract: We use Knuth's combinatorial approach to Pfaffians to reprove and clarify a century-old formula, due to Brill. It expresses arbitrary minors of a skew symmetric matrix in terms of Pfaffians.

\section{Brill's formula }

\noindent
In a paper \cite{DEK96} from 1996, Knuth took a combinatorial approach
to Pfaffians. It was immediately noticed that this approach
facilitates generalizations and simplified proofs of several known
identities involving Pfaffians; see for example Hamel \cite{AMH01}.

In this short note we apply the same approach to reprove a formula
that expresses arbitrary minors of a skew symmetric matrix in terms of
Pfaffians. The formula, which we here state as Theorem 1, first
appeared in a 1904 paper by Brill \cite{JBr04}. Our goal here is not
merely to give a short modern proof but also to clarify two aspects of
the formula: (1) To compute minors with Brill's formula
\cite[Eqn.~(1)]{JBr04} one needs to apply a sign convention explained
in a footnote; we integrate this sign into the formula. (2) As Brill
states right at the top of his paper, one can reduce to the case of
minors with disjoint row and column sets, and his formula deals only
with that case. We build that reduction into our proof and arrive at a
formula that also holds for minors with overlapping row and column
sets.

Bibliometric data suggests that Brill's formula may have gone largely
unnoticed. For us it turned out to be key to clarify a computation
in commutative algebra \cite{CVW-4}.

\subsection{Pfaffians following Knuth}
Let $T = (t_{ij})$ be an $n \times n$ skew symmetric matrix with
entries in some commutative ring. Assume that $T$ has zeros on the
diagonal; this is, of course, automatic if the characteristic of the
ring is not $2$. Set $\pff{ij} = t_{ij}$ for
$i,j \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$ and extend $\mathcal{P}$ to a function on
words in letters from the set $\set{1,\ldots,n}$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
  \pff{i_1\ldots i_{m}} \:=\:
  \begin{cases}
    0 & \text{ if $m$ is odd} \\
    \sum \sgn{i_1\ldots i_{2k}}{j_1 \ldots j_{2k}}\pff{j_1j_2} \cdots
    \pff{j_{2k-1}j_{2k}} & \text{ if $m = 2k$ is even}
  \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all partitions of $\set{i_1,\ldots,i_{2k}}$ into
$k$ subsets of cardinality $2$. The order of the two elements in each
subset is irrelevant as the difference in sign
$\pff{jj'} = - \pff{j'j}$ is offset by a change of sign of the
permutation; see \cite[Section~0]{DEK96}. The value of $\mathcal{P}$ on the
empty word is by convention $1$, and the value of $\mathcal{P}$ on a
word with a repeated letter is $0$. The latter is a convention in
characteristic $2$ and otherwise automatic.

For subsets $R$ and $S$ of $\set{1,\ldots,n}$ we write $T[R;S]$ for
the submatrix of $T$ obtained by taking the rows indexed by $R$ and
the columns indexed by $S$. The function $\mathcal{P}$ computes the
Pfaffians of skew symmetric submatrices of $T$. Indeed, for a subset
$R \subseteq \set{1,\ldots,n}$ with elements $r_1 < \cdots < r_m$ one
has
\begin{equation*}
  \Pf{T[R;R]} \:=\: \pff{r_1\ldots r_{m}} \:.
\end{equation*}
With this approach to Pfaffians, Knuth~\cite{DEK96} gives elegant
proofs for several classic formulas, generalizing them and clarifying
sign conventions in the process through the introduction of
permutation signs. For a word $\alpha$ in letters from
$\set{1,\ldots,n}$ and $a \in \alpha$ the following variation on the
classic Laplacian expansion is obtained as a special case of a formula
ascribed to Tanner \cite{HWT78},
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:DEK}
  \pff{\alpha} \:=\: \sum_{x\in\alpha}
  \sgn{\alpha}{ax(\alpha\setminus ax)}
  \pff{ax}\pff{\alpha\setminus ax} \:;
\end{equation}
see \cite[Eqn.~(2.0)]{DEK96}.  The introduction of the permutation
sign is what facilitates our statement and proof of Brill's formula.

\begin{theorem}
  Let $T$ be an $n \times n$ skew symmetric matrix. Let $R$ and $S$ be
  subsets of the set $\set{1,\ldots,n}$ with elements
  $r_1<\cdots <r_m$ and $s_1<\cdots <s_m$. With
  \begin{equation*}
    \rho \:=\: r_1\ldots r_m \qtext{and}
    \sigma = s_1\ldots s_m
  \end{equation*}
  the next equality holds:
  \begin{equation*}
    \det(T[R;S])
    \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \sum_{k = 0}^{\left\lfloor
        \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu}\sum_{\substack{|\omega| = 2k \\
        \omega \subseteq \rho}}
    \sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus\omega)}\pff{\omega}
    \pff{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}\:.
  \end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\noindent Notice that only subwords $\omega$ of $\rho$ that contain
$\rho \cap \sigma$ contribute to the sum, otherwise the word
$(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma$ has a repeated letter. The quantity
$\pff{\omega}$ is the Pfaffian of the submatrix
$\Pf{T[\set{\omega};\set{\omega}]}$, where $\set{\omega}$ is the subset of
$\set{1,\ldots,n}$ whose elements are the letters in
$\omega$. Similarly, for a word $\omega$ that contains $\rho \cap \sigma$,
the quantity $\pff{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}$ equals
$\sgn{\alpha}{(\alpha\setminus\sigma)\sigma} \Pf{T[\set{\alpha};\set{\alpha}]}$
where the word $\alpha$ has the letters from $(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma$
written in increasing order.

\section{Our proof}

\noindent
For subsets $R$ and $S$ as in the statement set
\begin{equation*}
  \dett{\rho}{\sigma} = \det(T[R;S]) \:.
\end{equation*}
For a word $\alpha$ in letters from $\set{1,\ldots,n}$ we write
$\overline{\alpha}$ for the word that has the letters from $\alpha$
written in increasing order. In the words $\rho$ and $\sigma$ and their
subwords the letters already appear in increasing order, but the bar
notation comes in handy for concatenated words such as $\rho\sigma$.

\subsection{Disjoint row and column sets}
We first assume that $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are disjoint subwords of
$1\ldots n$. Under this assumption
$\pff{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma} = \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}$
holds for every subword $\omega \subseteq \rho$, and in the balance of
the section we use the simpler notation
$\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}$.  We proceed by induction on $m$.  For
$m=1$ the formula holds as one has
$\det(T[\set{r_1};\set{s_1}]) = t_{r_1s_1} = \pff{r_1s_1}$. For
$m = 2$ expansion of the determinant along row $r_1$ yields
\begin{equation*}
  \dett{\rho}{\sigma} = \pff{r_1s_1}\pff{r_2s_2} - \pff{r_1s_2}\pff{r_2s_1} \:.
\end{equation*}
With $\alpha = \rho\sigma$ and $a = r_1$ the formula \eqref{DEK}
reads
\begin{align*}
  \pff{\rho\sigma}
  & \:=\: \sum_{x\in\rho\sigma}
    \sgn{\rho\sigma}{r_1x(\rho\sigma\setminus r_1x)}
    \pff{r_1x}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus r_1x}
  \\
  & \:=\: \pff{r_1r_2}\pff{s_1s_2} -
    \pff{r_1s_1}\pff{r_2s_2} + \pff{r_1s_2}\pff{r_2s_1}
  \\
  & \:=\: \pff{\rho}\pff{\sigma} - \dett{\rho}{\sigma} \:,
\end{align*}
which can be rewritten in the desired form:
\begin{equation*}
  \dett{\rho}{\sigma} \:=\: -( \pff{\rho\sigma} - \pff{\rho}\pff{\sigma} ) \:.
\end{equation*}

Before we move on to the induction step we record another consequence
of \eqref{DEK}:
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:rso}
  \begin{aligned}
    \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}
    & \:=\: \sum_{r\in\rho\setminus r_1\omega}
    \sgn{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}{r_1r(\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1r)}
    \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus \omega r_1r} \\
    & \hspace{4pc} {} + \sum_{s\in\sigma}
    \sgn{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}{r_1s(\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1s)}
    \pff{r_1s}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus \omega r_1s}
    \\
    & \:=\: \sum_{r\in\rho\setminus r_1\omega}
    \sgn{\rho\setminus\omega}{r_1r(\rho\setminus\omega r_1r)}
    \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus \omega r_1r} \\
    & \hspace{4pc} {} + \Sign{|\rho \setminus \omega| - 1}
    \sum_{s\in\sigma} \sgn{\sigma}{s(\sigma\setminus s)}
    \pff{r_1s}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus \omega r_1s} \:.
  \end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Now let $m \ge 2$ and $|\rho| = m+1 = |\sigma|$. In the next computation
the first equality is the expansion of the determinant
$\dett{\rho}{\sigma}$ along row $r_1$. The second equality follows from
the induction hypothesis, and the third is obtained by changing the
order of summation. The fourth equality follows from \eqref{rso}. The
fifth equality uses that $|\omega|$ is even and that
$|\rho\setminus \omega| -1 = m - 2k \equiv m \mod 2$ holds.
\begin{align*}
  \dett{\rho}{\sigma}
  & \:=\: \sum_{s\in\sigma}\sgn{\sigma}{s\sigma\setminus s}\pff{r_1s}
    \,\dett{\rho\setminus r_1}{\sigma\setminus s}
  \\
  & \:=\: \sum_{s\in\sigma}\sgn{\sigma}{s\sigma\setminus s}\pff{r_1s}  \\
  & \hspace{4pc} \cdot \Biggl(
    \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \sum_{k = 0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{
    |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho\setminus r_1}{\omega(\rho\setminus r_1\omega)}
  \pff{\omega}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus r_1\omega s}
  \Biggr)
  \\
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \sum_{k =0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{|\omega| = 2k \\
  \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho\setminus r_1}{\omega(\rho\setminus r_1\omega)} \pff{\omega}
  \\ & \hspace{13pc} \cdot \Bigr(
       \sum_{s\in\sigma}\sgn{\sigma}{s\sigma\setminus s}
       \pff{r_1s} \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus r_1\omega s}
       \Bigl)

  \\
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \sum_{k =0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{|\omega| = 2k \\
  \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho\setminus r_1}{\omega(\rho\setminus r_1\omega)} \pff{\omega}
  \\ & \hspace{2pc}
       \cdot \Sign{|\rho\setminus\omega|-1}
       \Big(\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}
       \mspace{4mu} - \mspace{-8mu}\sum_{r\in\rho\setminus\omega r_1}
       \mspace{-9mu}\sgn{\rho\setminus\omega}{r_1r(\rho\setminus\omega r_1r)}
       \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1r} \Big)
  \\
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor + m}
    \Biggl(
    \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{
    |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus\omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega} -
  \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor
  \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
  \Sign{k}  \\
  & \hspace{2pc} \cdot \mspace{-4mu} \sum_{\substack{|\omega| = 2k \\
  \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus \omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \mspace{-4mu}
  \sum_{r\in\rho\setminus\omega r_1}
  \mspace{-9mu}\sgn{\rho\setminus\omega}{r_1r(\rho\setminus\omega r_1r)}
  \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1r}
  \Bigg)
  \\
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \Bigg(
    \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{
    |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus\omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega} +
  \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor
  \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
  \Sign{k+1} \\ &\hspace{3pc} \cdot \mspace{-3mu}  \sum_{\substack{
                  |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \sum_{r\in\rho\setminus\omega r_1}
  \mspace{-9mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega r_1r(\rho\setminus \omega r_1r)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1r}
  \Bigg) \:.
\end{align*}
The next step is to simplify the last line in the display above. The
first equality in the following computation holds as $|\omega|$ is
even. The third equality follows by substituting $\omega'$ for the word
$\overline{r_1r\omega}$ and noticing that one then has
\begin{equation*}
  \sgn{\rho}{r_1r\omega (\rho\setminus r_1r\omega)} \:=\:
  \sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\setminus \omega')}
  \sgn{\omega'}{r_1r\omega }
  \:=\:
  \sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\setminus \omega')}
  \sgn{\omega'}{r_1r(\omega'\setminus r_1r)} \:.
\end{equation*}
The last equality follows from \eqref{DEK} applied with
$\alpha = \omega'$ and $a = r_1$.
\begin{align*}
  {} & \sum_{\substack{|\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{3mu}\sum_{r\in\rho\setminus\omega r_1}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega r_1r(\rho\setminus \omega r_1r)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega r_1r}
  \\
     &\:=\: \sum_{\substack{
       |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{3mu}\sum_{r\in\rho\setminus\omega r_1}
  \sgn{\rho}{r_1r \omega(\rho\setminus r_1r\omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus r_1r\omega}
  \\
     & \:=\: \sum_{\substack{|\omega'| = 2k+2 \\ \scriptscriptstyle r_1 \in \omega' \subseteq \rho}}
  \mspace{3mu} \sum_{r\in\omega'\setminus r_1}
  \mspace{-4mu}  \sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\setminus \omega')}
  \sgn{\omega'}{r_1r(\omega'\setminus r_1r)}
  \pff{\omega'\setminus r_1r} \pff{r_1r}\pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega'}
  \\
     & \:=\: \sum_{\substack{
       |\omega'| = 2k+2 \\ \scriptscriptstyle r_1 \in \omega' \subseteq \rho}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\setminus \omega')}
  \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega'}
  \Big(
  \sum_{r\in\omega'\setminus r_1}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\omega'}{r_1r(\omega'\setminus r_1r)}
  \pff{r_1r}\pff{\omega'\setminus r_1r}
  \Big)
  \\
     & \:=\: \sum_{\substack{ |\omega'| = 2(k+1) \\
  \scriptscriptstyle r_1 \in \omega' \subseteq \rho}}
  \mspace{-4mu} \sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\sigma\setminus \omega')}
  \pff{\rho\setminus\omega'} \pff{\omega'} \:.
\end{align*}
Substituting this into the computation above one gets the desired
equality.
\begin{align*}
  \dett{\rho}{\sigma}
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \Bigg(
    \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu} \sum_{\substack{
    |\omega| = 2k \\ \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho\setminus r_1}}
  \mspace{-3mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus\omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega}  \\
  & \hspace{4pc} {} + \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor
    \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k+1}\mspace{-12mu}
    \sum_{\substack{ |\omega'| = 2(k+1) \\
  \scriptscriptstyle r_1 \in \omega' \subseteq \rho}}
  \mspace{-4mu}\sgn{\rho}{\omega'(\rho\setminus \omega')}
  \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega'} \pff{\omega'} \Bigg)
  \\
  & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{2} \right\rfloor}
    \Sign{k} \sum_{\substack{ |\omega| = 2k \\
  \scriptscriptstyle \omega \subseteq \rho}}
  \sgn{\rho}{\omega(\rho\setminus\omega)}
  \pff{\omega} \pff{\rho\sigma\setminus\omega} \:.
\end{align*}
This proves the asserted formula in the special case where $R$ and $S$
are disjoint, and it remains to reduce the general case to this one.

\subsection{Overlapping row and column sets}
First notice that the submatrix $T[R;S]$ agrees with a submatrix of
the $2n \times 2n$ skew symmetric matrix $T'$ obtained from $T$ by
repeating all entries, horizontally and vertically. For example, with
{\small \begin{equation*} T \:=\:
    \begin{pmatrix}
      0 & t_{12} & t_{13} \\
      - t_{12} & 0 &  t_{23} \\
      - t_{13} & - t_{23} & 0
    \end{pmatrix}
    \qtext{and}
    T' \:=\:
    \begin{pmatrix}
      0 & 0 & t_{12} & t_{12} & t_{13} & t_{13} \\
      0 & 0 & t_{12} & t_{12} & t_{13} & t_{13} \\
      - t_{12} & - t_{12} & 0 & 0 &  t_{23} &  t_{23} \\
      - t_{12} & - t_{12} & 0 & 0 &  t_{23} &  t_{23} \\
      - t_{13} & - t_{13} & - t_{23} & - t_{23} & 0 & 0 \\
      - t_{13} & - t_{13} & - t_{23} & - t_{23} & 0 & 0
    \end{pmatrix}
  \end{equation*} }
one has $T[\set{1,2};\set{2,3}] = T'[\set{1,3};\set{4,6}]$. In
general, one has
\begin{gather*}
  T[R;S] \:=\: T'[R';S'] \intertext{for} R' \:=\: \set{2r_1-1,\ldots,
    2r_m-1} \qqtext{and} S' = \set{2s_1,\ldots, 2s_m} \:.
\end{gather*}
One now has
\begin{align*}
  \det(T[R;S]) & \:=\: \det(T'[R';S']) \\
               & \:=\: \Sign{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
                 \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor
                 \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}
                 \mspace{6mu}\Sign{k}\mspace{-6mu}\sum_{\substack{ |\omega'| = 2k \\
  \scriptscriptstyle \omega' \subseteq \rho'}}
  \sgn{\rho'}{\omega'(\rho'\setminus\omega')}\pff{\omega'}
  \pff{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'}
\end{align*}
where the second equality holds by the case already
established. Indeed, the numbers in $R'$ are odd and the numbers in
$S'$ are even.  Notice that for every $k$ there is a one-to-one
correspondence, given by the relation $r_i' = 2r_i-1$, between
subwords $\omega'\subseteq \rho'$ of length $2k$ and subwords $\omega$ of
$\rho$ of length $2k$, and one has $\pff{\omega'} = \pff{\omega}$ for
corresponding subwords. Let $U$ denote the submatrix of $T'[R',S']$
obtained by removing the rows and columns whose indices, all odd,
appear in the word $\omega'$. One has
\begin{equation*}
  \pff{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'} = \sgn{\overline{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'}}{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'} \Pf{U} \:.
\end{equation*}
If an element $x \in R \cap S$ does not appear in $\omega$, then $2x-1$
is not in $\omega'$, so $U$ contains the identical rows/columns $2x-1$
and $2x$ from $T'$, whence
$\pff{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'}=0=\pff{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}$
holds. On the other hand, if every element of $R \cap S$ appears in
$\omega$, then the matrix $U$ is a submatrix of
$T[R\setminus R \cap S; S\setminus R \cap S]$ with Pfaffian
$\sgn{\overline{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}}{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}\pff{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}$. As
one has $\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega' = (\rho'\setminus\omega')\sigma'$
the permutations
$\big(\begin{smallmatrix}\overline{(\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma}\\
  (\rho\setminus\omega)\sigma \end{smallmatrix}\big)$ and
$\big(\begin{smallmatrix}\overline{\rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega'}\\
  \rho'\sigma'\setminus\omega' \end{smallmatrix}\big)$ have the same
sign, and the proof is complete.

  \providecommand{\MR}[1]{\mbox{\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#1}}}
  \renewcommand{\MR}[1]{\mbox{\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#1}}}
  \providecommand{\arxiv}[2][AC]{\mbox{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#2}{\sf
  arXiv:#2 [math.#1]}}} \def$'${$'$}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Rings and Algebras (math.RA)